People tried to make the same argument last year when Brady was traded and it wasn't true then either. Manning is 36 not 50. He's got a 5 year deal. There is no evidence whatsoever that he will probably retire "in a year."

I'm in year 3 of my offline franchise and Manning's not on Football Night in America yet. Dammed ageists in here lol

I'm in year 3 of my offline league and he is retired lol. London Fletcher also retired after the first year and he was 37 with even less signs of slowing down than manning. It isn't certain that he will retire but it is quite possible. The deal just seems lopsided to me. To each their own I guess.

I'm in year 3 of my offline league and he is retired lol. London Fletcher also retired after the first year and he was 37 with even less signs of slowing down than manning. It isn't certain that he will retire but it is quite possible. The deal just seems lopsided to me. To each their own I guess.

"Possible" isn't the same as "probable." Nor is Joe Haden a smidge away from being 99 Overall. What I'm saying is that posting the worst-case scenario for one team and the best case scenario for the other team is probably going to make any trade look pretty lopsided. I assume the Browns know how old Manning is, I'm sure he'll be investing in the QB Retirement package (as I certainly would be if keeping Manning).

You're certainly entitled to not like the trade and to discuss it in the thread, but I'm curious why you think it's so lopsided? Just because of the ages of the players? Because just going by overall (always a flawed metric of course) it's a one point difference when you combine the players. Even if you think Haden is more valuable than Manning (which I don't think is true for present-day value, but going forward, sure) the next best player in the deal (Tamme) is going the other way, which would seem to mitigate that.

"Possible" isn't the same as "probable." Nor is Joe Haden a smidge away from being 99 Overall. What I'm saying is that posting the worst-case scenario for one team and the best case scenario for the other team is probably going to make any trade look pretty lopsided.

You're certainly entitled to not like the trade and to discuss it in the thread, but I'm curious why you think it's so lopsided? Just because of the ages of the players? Because just going by overall (always a flawed metric of course) it's a one point difference when you combine the players. Even if you think Haden is more valuable than Manning (which I don't think is true for present-day value, but going forward, sure) the next best player in the deal (Tamme) is going the other way, which would seem to mitigate that.

First off, Tamme for Weeden is a fair trade. QB is arguably more important than a tight end so the ratings difference there is a fair deal. But you can't say adding Tamme who is 27 years old and 80 overall makes it a fair trade for Haden when you aren't getting just Haden. You are getting Haden and Weeden (the other 2 players are bench riders so they dont matter).

Best case for Manning is another 4 years. And that is absolute best case putting him at 40. He could easily retire in 1 year. Haden on the other hand wont be retiring for 12-14 years. Plus old players tend to regress when they get older and that is incorporated into Madden 13. Joe Haden will progress without question. So best case scenario is manning plays 4 years and stays at 90, while Haden plays 12 years and will hit 95+. He is already 95 overall after 3 years in my offline league. This is just being realistic. Just because you think Manning has a few more years left in him doesn't mean the Madden Gods do. Manning is at the age where he can retire at any time in Madden and in a trade where you are getting the third best corner in the game who is only 23 years old you have to factor this in.

Lets not forget that CB is one of the most important positions on the defense in Madden. Joe Haden can completely change the outcome of the game so it isn't fair to downplay his significance because he isn't a QB. It isn't my call on whether this trade goes through or not, but at least give the Browns some lube before you them and their future lol.

So best case scenario is manning plays 4 years and stays at 90, while Haden plays 12 years and will hit 95+.

Last year we played 5 years. 4 is certainly in the realm of possibility, 12 definitely isn't. Not that it changes your point about Manning retiring, which I acknowledge is a possibility, but what Joe Haden does in 12 years isn't really relevant.

Lets not forget that CB is one of the most important positions on the defense in Madden. Joe Haden can completely change the outcome of the game so it isn't fair to downplay his significance because he isn't a QB.

The problem with your argument is that QB is also the most important position on offense. The upgrade from Weeden to Manning in present-day value is huge. I certainly don't disagree about the value of a good CB.

Some might think a good QB is less important than a CB, but I don't agree. Winning with shit cornerbacks is easier than winning with a shit QB. It just is. For my money, the Browns are a more competitive team with Manning right now than with Haden. Are they absorbing more risk going forward? Sure.

I'm not downplaying the significance of Haden at all. I'm the one trading my starting QB for him, obviously I think he is great. I happen to have the luxury of one of the best backup QBs in the game, otherwise I wouldn't be making the trade.

It isn't my call on whether this trade goes through or not, but at least give the Browns some lube before you them and their future lol.

This kind of hyperbole has never served these sorts of discussions and never will. You're making perfectly rational points, don't undermine them with this kind of nonsense.

Last year we played 5 years. 4 is certainly in the realm of possibility, 12 definitely isn't. Not that it changes your point about Manning retiring, which I acknowledge is a possibility, but what Joe Haden does in 12 years isn't really relevant.

The problem with your argument is that QB is also the most important position on offense. The upgrade from Weeden to Manning in present-day value is huge. I certainly don't disagree about the value of a good CB.

Some might think a good QB is less important than a CB, but I don't agree. Winning with shit cornerbacks is easier than winning with a shit QB. It just is. For my money, the Browns are a more competitive team with Manning right now than with Haden. Are they absorbing more risk going forward? Sure.

I'm not downplaying the significance of Haden at all. I'm the one trading my starting QB for him, obviously I think he is great. I happen to have the luxury of one of the best backup QBs in the game, otherwise I wouldn't be making the trade.

This kind of hyperbole has never served these sorts of discussions and never will. You're making perfectly rational points, don't undermine them with this kind of nonsense.

haden is the most valuble part of the brows defense.... i personally wouldnt make the trade but regardless were all our own gms and would jump at the oppertunity to grab haden so i dont blame bv because he was able to propose a trade like this and the browns owner likes it and agreed.... the problam is and well see if it happens the browns owner is a new guy and if he trades haden and quits the league the browns will have no good cbs...

I apologize if you read that comment as hostile, it wasn't. My point is that you're making perfectly reasonable points and having an intelligent discussion about something, but you kind of undermine it with the "you're fucking them, get the lube!" bit. It just isn't constructive to the discussion.

Trust me, other than that I appreciate your input and I'm sure the committee does as well. As a reminder, I'm not allowed to vote on my own trades so I'm sure they consider your opinion more relevant than mine.

the problam is and well see if it happens the browns owner is a new guy and if he trades haden and quits the league the browns will have no good cbs...

They'll have a QB though.

That concerned me as well, especially given the Browns communication issues. I'm very against guys changing a team and then bailing, but Fero spoke to him about his issues and he's assured us he's committed to the league. If that weren't the case, I wouldn't have traded with him.

I apologize if you read that comment as hostile, it wasn't. My point is that you're making perfectly reasonable points and having an intelligent discussion about something, but you kind of undermine it with the "you're fucking them, get the lube!" bit. It just isn't constructive to the discussion.

Trust me, other than that I appreciate your input and I'm sure the committee does as well. As a reminder, I'm not allowed to vote on my own trades so I'm sure they consider your opinion more relevant than mine.

They'll have a QB though.

That concerned me as well, especially given the Browns communication issues. I'm very against guys changing a team and then bailing, but Fero spoke to him about his issues and he's assured us he's committed to the league. If that weren't the case, I wouldn't have traded with him.

The Browns would of beat me if their WR's didnt drop 3-4 touchdowns changing the QB doesnt change the WR catching ability lol

EDIT: I just read the rules, and I believe I followed them correctly. I think it's going to be hard to establish if someone did or did not angle the kick. I did not angle anything other then default. I think it still bounced off to the side though which I had no control over.

I think what uber suggested is the correct solution:

Even if it wasn't somehow intentional, a very easy remedy would be to punt it right away or take a knee--which would accomplish the same thing as a squib should be used for anyway.

Recovering a squib should be banned period except in cases where the receiving team has clear possession and THEN fumbles (same as if they fumbled a normal kickoff). If your team recovers a squib kick, whether it was angled or not, just punt it out the back of the endzone to give your opponent the ball at the 20.

I think that removes all question of intent from the discussion. Would anyone have an issue with that being the rule?

i think thats the best idea... people wont kick it with intent to recover if they have to punt it back anyway... also those who dont want squibs banned altogether are happy to

Question. Not that i squib or anything but i could see this coming up if someone squibs with no intention to recover it but the guys gets hit and fumbles it do u still punt? Or is that a legit turnover

Question. Not that i squib or anything but i could see this coming up if someone squibs with no intention to recover it but the guys gets hit and fumbles it do u still punt? Or is that a legit turnover

edit: Well, if a player has the ball and is returning it like any normal kickoff, gets hit, and it's a legit caused fumble.. then no, you don't have to.

By providing links to other sites, CheapAssGamer.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to CheapAssGamer.com. CheapAssGamer.com is owned and operated by CAG Productions, LLC.

Please read our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using CheapAssGamer.com.